The United States famously has a perpetual lease on a naval base at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, though what isn’t widely known is that the lease covers only the half of the bay forming its outlet to the Caribbean Sea. (See this map of Guantanamo.) One of the original treaties governing the lease seems to provide for the continuance of Cuban maritime traffic through the bay:
I’m interested to know, then, whether there’s any shipping or naval traffic between the Caribbean Sea and the upper, Cuban-controlled part of the bay. Or has the Cuban government effectively shut Guantanamo Bay to all ocean-going vessels?
Cuba couldn’t legally do that. The right of innocent passage, which is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but also part of customary international law, means that ships of all nations are allowed to traverse Cuban territorial waters as long as this is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of Cuba.
Are you sure the bay isn’t considered Cuba’s internal waters? The internal/territorial baseline is often drawn straight across deeply indented coastlines like this one.
Who gets to decide whether a specific traversal is prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of a country? E.g. suppose I attempt to traverse Cuban waters with a ship armed with torpedoes. Cuba feels that letting an armed ship get so close to their country is dangerous to their navy and to Cuban civilians, but I claim that the torpedoes are only there for self-defense against pirates and that I have no hostile intentions. Who gets to adjudicate the case? Do we go before a UN tribunal?
Good point. Here is a map and here a verbal description of Cuba’s straight baseline claims (both PDF). But then again, even in this case Article 8(2) of UNCLOS would provide for a right of innocent passage through such waters as well:
If you don’t end up solving the dispute by one-on-one diplomacy or by military hostilities, then yeah, you would probably go before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
It’s first and foremost within the discretion of the coastal state, but that discretion is not unlimited. Other countries could argue that this was not actually an instance of legitimate restrictions to innocent passage and resolve the isse either diplomatically, or ultimately through litigation before the court mentioned by psychonaut. It’s an international tribunal deciding disputes between states under the international law of the sea in a legally binding manner.
By the way, UNCLOS does include rules defining in more detail what innocent passage is:
In your case, the mere fact that a foreign warship carrying torpedos wants to traverse the waters would not be sufficient to make the passage non-innocent, as long as the warship, in essence, doesn’t do anything with the warships while in the territorial (or, potentially, internal) waters of the coastal state.
My personal knowledge is several years old. Cuban fishing vessels go through the bay to the ocean constantly throughout each day. The boats are not interfered with. Prior coordination is made for each ship that passes through. There is a sea gate flanked by two Marine Observation Posts on the northern mouth of American Navy post. If need be the passage can be shut down. The waters of the bay are patrolled by the U.S. Coast Guard. Even at the chilliest of the Cold War communication was open between the Cubans and the base commander.
Fascinating. I know that since the 1960s hundreds of thousands of Cubans have crossed over to Florida on boat to seek asylum. Did any asylum seekers head for the much closer American base on Guantanamo Bay instead? I’m not sure if international law would even allow the US to accept asylum seekers there, though I’m thinking at least some Cubans may have tried.
